Larry Liimatainen <remlali@...> writes:
> >
> > ...and glancing at the patch, I think you do look at the target's
> > features. But I think the way you do it is much kludgier than simply
> > using #!. Logical pathnames also need to use capital letters for
> > their pathname components--and I don't think you can use logical
> > pathnames for the cold bits of the compiler anyway...unless you set up
> > a translation for SRC, which I do not see you doing.
> >
> >
> Thanks alot for the pointers.. I'll continue with the patch.
>
> It feels the right thing todo this in build-order for architecture
> selection:
>
> :+x86 -> use this file only for x86
> :-x86 -> don't use this file if target are x86
> nothing -> use this for all arch.
Prefixing symbols with + and - does not feel right (especially since
your patch seems to have something like 4 copies of the symbol parsing
code). If data has some structure, the structure should be reflected
in the s-exp and not in symbol names. So maybe something like
(:build-if :x86), (:build-if (and (not :ppc) :darwin)), etc.
I'm also a bit puzzled about the change to logical pathnames. What's
the reason for doing that?
--
Juho Snellman

>
> ...and glancing at the patch, I think you do look at the target's
> features. But I think the way you do it is much kludgier than simply
> using #!. Logical pathnames also need to use capital letters for
> their pathname components--and I don't think you can use logical
> pathnames for the cold bits of the compiler anyway...unless you set up
> a translation for SRC, which I do not see you doing.
>
>
Thanks alot for the pointers.. I'll continue with the patch.
It feels the right thing todo this in build-order for architecture
selection:
:+x86 -> use this file only for x86
:-x86 -> don't use this file if target are x86
nothing -> use this for all arch.
But some special cases kill my patch:
("src;compiler;target;arith" #!+(or ppc sparc) :ignore-failure-p)
thanks,
/larry